[1] Part VI[2] of PACE required the Home Secretary to issue Codes of Practice governing police powers.

The aim of PACE is to establish a balance between the powers of the police in England and Wales and the rights and freedoms of the public.

It describes the AA role as "to safeguard the rights, entitlements and welfare of juveniles and vulnerable persons to whom the provisions of this and any other Code of Practice apply”.

[9] The 1981 Brixton riots and the subsequent Scarman report were key factors in the passage of the Act, which was brought in following recommendations set out by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure.

A notable example of this was at the 1976 Notting Hill Carnival, where there was a perceived threat of 'black' crime, resulting in the police justifying using 'sus' laws inappropriately, including 'flooding' resources into the area.

[11] Furthermore, high-profile miscarriages of justice, including three innocent youths being imprisoned for allegedly murdering a mixed-raced male prostitute named Maxwell Confait, as well the Birmingham Six showed there was a requirement for police accountability.

[10] In 1979, the government appointed a Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, with Sir Cyril Phillips noting that in the 20th century, no review had been complete of police processes.

The report proposed that across England and Wales, there should be powers and safeguards that were uniform, with the aim being to reduce the level of searches that were random and discriminatory.

[citation needed] Various other government agencies including TV Licensing, the Royal Mail, BT Group (from its days of being spun off from General Post Office Telephones) and about seventeen others also have a statutory right of entry.

One intent of PACE and its successors is to prevent the abuse of this right, or remove it entirely, to balance the privacy of the individual against the needs of the State.

Notably, Section 1 outlines that a constable has a power to search any person or vehicle for stolen or prohibited articles, including: Part II of the Act relates to the police's powers in relation to entering and searching a location, as well as the seizure of items This section provides that a constable can make an application for a warrant to a justice of the peace to enter and seize items from a premises, on the reasonable grounds they believe: This provides that a constable can enter a premises under the following circumstances, if they are: PACE did not effect a constable's power under Common Law, to enter a location to deal with or to prevent a breach of the peace.

This section provides that a constable, having established reasonable grounds, may search an arrested person, in any place other than a police station (this is covered by s54 PACE 1984).

[24][25] In the case of Christopher James Miller v. Director of Public Prosecutions (2018)[26] Mr. Miller's conviction for drug driving was revoked because West Midlands Police had breached Code C of PACE by not providing an appropriate adult, despite him telling officers that he had Asperger's syndrome and being aware from his previous interactions that he had Asperger's.

IPCC Investigation 2012/011560 - A breach of Code C of PACE occurred in 2012 when a vulnerable 11-year-old girl Child H with a neurological disability similar to autism who was denied an appropriate adult at Crawley Police Station, after she was arrested in Horsham on 4 separate occasions for minor offences between February and March 2012.